Okay, this is a response for the statutory interpretation question from Autumn 2004. Anyone criticisms? I found it extremely hard to write more than that. ( please ignore the spelling/grammar mistakes and legislations/cases will be underlined during the exam.
)
--------------------------
Under the narrow approached developed in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Company, Sam meets all but one of the criteria within the Wildlife Protection Act 2004 (NSW) (“the Act”). The word ‘wildlife’ defines as animals whose habitat is non-domestic, that is, does not live within the household. Ducks unfortunately are domesticated animals and could be trained under human guidance, as they live in a popular pond, it is highly likely that humans may contribute to the wildlife’s food. The word “poach: means taking animals from its natural environment, but the pond was not a natural environment, it was manmade along with the Botanic Garden. Thus, under the narrow approach, Sam is not liable under the.
However, in Kensington v Keprose, McHugh J established that should the wording of the legislature cause a grave injustice that was not likely to be the parliament’s intentions, than the current actions must be measured against the purpose of the act. The guidelines for this are outlined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (“the AI Act”). Under s15AA within the AI Act, intrinsic sources may be used to determine the purpose of the act. Within the statute, the aim of the act is to protect wildlife from being stolen and/or killed by humans. Extrinsic sources may also be used under s15AB on the AI Act; amongst the list of extrinsic sources listed are the second reading speeches. The second reading speech by the Minister who introduced the act stated that act’s intended provisions are necessary to maintain our ecological diversity of wildlife for future generations.
Thus, both intrinsic and extrinsic sources establish that the wording within the clauses of the statute does not fulfill the true intention of the act. The intention of the act was to prevent humans from abducting or killing animals so that future generations may enjoy its presence. Under this approach, the purpose is prevails, thus, Sam is liable for 30 penalty units under s8 of the Act.
--------------------------------------
